Return to “General”

Post

Re: Zones

#61
Cornflakes_91 wrote:i agree with the most of this EXCEPT for the "similar zones with different owners dont merge" part, as i dont see how we could ever get superiority in a zone if we displace it somewhere else when we build a concurrent building next to it.
basically negating everything what i suggested about ownership and ownership changes. which, as i read out of the devlog, is something josh wants to include
If you're saying what I think you're saying, then with the sectors-based implementation, the territories of two agents would meet along a "contested space" boundary. Even though the two zones don't merge, building a station closer to the boundary will reinforce the spread of your ownership through those sectors, driving back the boundaries of their territory and allowing you to claim more sectors. This should also work with a pure metaball approach, though. :eh:
Post

Re: Zones

#62
If a zone is owned by someone, and you can build a station next to it without contest, I think it's fair to say that zone is now yours. :)
Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master.
Post

Re: Zones

#63
Katorone wrote:If a zone is owned by someone, and you can build a station next to it without contest, I think it's fair to say that zone is now yours. :)
Especially considering the time it takes to build a station. :ghost:
A good plan, violently executed now, is better than a perfect plan next week.

In magenta we trust
Post

Re: Zones

#64
ThymineC wrote:
Cornflakes_91 wrote:i agree with the most of this EXCEPT for the "similar zones with different owners dont merge" part, as i dont see how we could ever get superiority in a zone if we displace it somewhere else when we build a concurrent building next to it.
basically negating everything what i suggested about ownership and ownership changes. which, as i read out of the devlog, is something josh wants to include
If you're saying what I think you're saying, then with the sectors-based implementation, the territories of two agents would meet along a "contested space" boundary. Even though the two zones don't merge, building a station closer to the boundary will reinforce the spread of your ownership through those sectors, driving back the boundaries of their territory and allowing you to claim more sectors. This should also work with a pure metaball approach, though. :eh:
but we still wouldnt get control over the zone but only increase the area of our zone as far as we can push the boundary.

example:
a big, big asteroid field zone is used by many factions and they all have their stations built up there, none of them is so much bigger than the others.
now a big company builds up an station in a new sub-zone, providing much more ownership than the others assets in the field.
they are now the most powerful faction in the zone by far.

with my system:
the complete asteroid field belongs now to the new faction, but not in every sub-zone.
only the sub-zone in which their station is residing belongs to them, albeit they control the complete asteroid field.
they are now the leaders in this asteroid field and start to enforcing their rule in it.

with Flats system:
the new faction has now a more or less small bubble of space inside the asteroid-field super-zone but not the control over the asteroid field (in zone-terms, not in general power)
they are the most powerful faction in the asteroid field but still cannot enforce their rule based on zone borders, as they only own a small bubble inside the field, but not the field itself.
they are not able to rule the asteroid field albeit they could curbstomp everyone in it, if they liked to do.

that is my principal problem.
as with real life; there is maybe no police station or other law-enforcing site in my immediate neighborhood but i know that it is more or less "their" zone around my house.
(i know this is a bit of an lame comparison, but its the best one i got)
Post

Re: Zones

#65
Cornflakes_91 wrote:the complete asteroid field belongs now to the new faction, but not in every sub-zone.
only the sub-zone in which their station is residing belongs to them
I'm a bit confused by this point. Does the whole asteroid field belong to them, or just the zone containing their station?
Post

Re: Zones

#66
ThymineC wrote:
Cornflakes_91 wrote:the complete asteroid field belongs now to the new faction, but not in every sub-zone.
only the sub-zone in which their station is residing belongs to them
I'm a bit confused by this point. Does the whole asteroid field belong to them, or just the zone containing their station?
Both, the asteroid fiels and their sub-zone, but not the sub-zones containing the other stations.

At least not directly.
The other sub-zones can have their own rules as long as they dont interfere with the super-zones rules.
Post

Re: Zones

#67
Cornflakes_91 wrote: the new faction has now a more or less small bubble of space inside the asteroid-field super-zone but not the control over the asteroid field (in zone-terms, not in general power)
they are the most powerful faction in the asteroid field but still cannot enforce their rule based on zone borders, as they only own a small bubble inside the field, but not the field itself.
they are not able to rule the asteroid field albeit they could curbstomp everyone in it, if they liked to do.
My suggestion to solving this would be quite simple: there can be no "ruler" of a system unless they have an actual military presence. I.e. whoever has the most (military) power in a region may make and enforce their own rules. Nothing actually stops the inhabitants of the system from braking these unless there is a military presence there to enforce them. :)

Hopefully I didn't misunderstand anyone... :oops:
A good plan, violently executed now, is better than a perfect plan next week.

In magenta we trust
Post

Re: Zones

#68
Basmannen wrote: My suggestion to solving this would be quite simple: there can be no "ruler" of a system unless they have an actual military presence. I.e. whoever has the most (military) power in a region may make and enforce their own rules. Nothing actually stops the inhabitants of the system from braking these unless there is a military presence there to enforce them. :)

Hopefully I didn't misunderstand anyone... :oops:
The ownership of the zone already indicates that they have the most power in this area and can enforce their rulin and others recognise the ruling
Post

Re: Zones

#71
Cornflakes_91 wrote:
Basmannen wrote:And the sub-zones are partially independent?
They are partially independent.
they inherit the rules/rulings from their super-zones but can add their own rules on top of that as long as it does not interfere with the rules from the super-zone
Seems like a good enough idea then. :thumbup:
A good plan, violently executed now, is better than a perfect plan next week.

In magenta we trust
Post

Re: Zones

#72
Hmm.

If I build a station in an asteroid field, which generates a "station zone" of some size for my faction, why/how does that grant my faction ownership (as a "super-zone") of the whole asteroid field?

If there is an asteroid field, and several factions have built stations in that field (whose zones don't overlap, allowing the game to always know whose "station zone" effects to apply), then it seems to me that taking over the field should require capturing or replacing the points of interest (the stations of other factions) in that asteroid field.

That's actually a really interesting point as it highlights a need for certain zone types to not need a specific object as the point of interest that defines them. The zone for a conglomeration of individual objects -- like an asteroid field, or a fleet of ships -- might be defined as an imaginary point (albeit one that the game itself can "see" and manipulate) at the current mean central point of all the objects in that group. That imaginary controlling point of interest might be the kind that can have an owner (like a fleet), or a kind that doesn't (like an entire asteroid field).

For that latter kind of zone of a group of objects, why is it necessary for it to be entirely ownable as a unitary thing, rather than being ownable in pieces (which may overlap or not)?

(Also, thanks, Katorone. :))
Post

Re: Zones

#73
What this discussion reminds me of:
Image So, the corporations basically claimed control of everything surrounding the guy's house. Should they have immediately gained control over it at some point, or should they have had to have "conquered" it at some point to claim control over that area of land (as they did in the film)?
Post

Re: Zones

#74
Flatfingers wrote: If I build a station in an asteroid field, which generates a "station zone" of some size for my faction, why/how does that grant my faction ownership (as a "super-zone") of the whole asteroid field?
inside every zone get all ownership points you have added up together and compared with the ownership points any other faction has in there.
if you have more points (+some threshhold) than any other faction you get ownership of the zone.
sub zones have independent "scores" but super-zones add up all ownership of their sub-zones.

example:
asteroid field with 2 subzones.
2 stations in every sub-zone, makes 4 stations total in the zone, all of the stations provide roughly the same ownership points.

so the arrangement of stations in the zones is like so

[ (s+s) + (s+s) ]

factions a, b and c own these stations
a owns 2, b owns 1 and c owns 1.
a's stations provide a bit less ownership per station than b anc c's

the station arrangement is like so:

[ (a+b) + (a+c) ]

as a's stations provide a bit less points the sub-zones do belong to b and c respective.
but a has more ownership points in the super-zone, so it controls the super-zone.

so while a does not have direct control of the sub-zones they can apply their rules there because they own the super-zone
Post

Re: Zones

#75
ThymineC wrote:What this discussion reminds me of:
Image So, the corporations basically claimed control of everything surrounding the guy's house. Should they have immediately gained control over it at some point, or should they have had to have "conquered" it at some point to claim control over that area of land (as they did in the film)?
well, in this case ownership radius = 0, so no.

but if we assume that the skyscrapers provide ownership then yes, they could enforce their ruling on the old man IF their rules do not interfere with the rules of the super-zone, which is in this case the state or city in which the buildings stand

Online Now

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 1 guest

cron